Royalty enforcement is now a partnership filter, not a settings toggle

Most brand teams still treat royalties as a line item in a deploy script. Collectors have already reclassified them as a trust signal. The tell is in secondary-market behaviour: buyers now check enforcement terms before a mint, not after a disappointment, and the marketplaces that made royalties optional effectively taught them to do it.

The mechanism that closes the gap is a provenance and royalty sheet shipped alongside the collection itself — signed by the minting entity, naming the token standard, listing which marketplaces honour enforcement, and stating a revocation policy in plain language. For licensed or collab drops, log the license hash on-chain so a secondary buyer can verify lineage without opening a support ticket. This is exactly what partners now request during diligence, and the projects that arrive with it pre-built move through legal review in days rather than quarters. If you want to see how documented collections read to a buyer, browse the [gallery](/nft/gallery) with that lens.

Trust in on-chain assets is no longer a function of the artwork. It is a function of whether a stranger can verify the deal without asking you. So the practical question for this channel: if a secondary buyer who has never spoken to your team tried to reconstruct your royalty and provenance terms today, what would they actually find?